From an outside view, how can we distinguish this virtue-of-flawed-research from insiders refraining from criticizing each other for the sake of the reputation of the research field?
Virtue of flawed research insiders won’t not criticise the flaws, but they will follow up on them with further studies expanding on a point or fixing a methodology.
The problem that Roberts might be criticising is the sort of thinking that goes: I’ve made a criticism, now we can forget about the thing.
From an outside view, how can we distinguish this virtue-of-flawed-research from insiders refraining from criticizing each other for the sake of the reputation of the research field?
Virtue of flawed research insiders won’t not criticise the flaws, but they will follow up on them with further studies expanding on a point or fixing a methodology.
The problem that Roberts might be criticising is the sort of thinking that goes: I’ve made a criticism, now we can forget about the thing.